On Sat, 04 Aug 2012 13:59:55 +0200, Gérard Talbot
<css21testsuite@gtalbot.org> wrote:
>
> Le Jeu 2 août 2012 8:22, Florian Rivoal a écrit :
>> Hi,
>>
>> I've submitted a few TCs for @supports in
>> contributors/opera/submitted/css3-conditional/
>
> http://test.csswg.org/source/contributors/opera/submitted/css3-conditional/
>
>
> Florian,
>
> The nr 1 problem I see right now with those 33 tests is that 19 of them
> will pass in browsers which have no implemention of @supports
> conditional rule. So, these 19 tests have limited relevance, worthiness
> and weak trustworthiness.
These tests were useful to me when implementing, and quite a few of them
failed on early stages of the implementation.
Of course, they will already pass on a (correctly implemented) browser
that does not have @support at all, but incorrect implementation of
@supports can cause them to fail.
More than testing @supports, they are testing the error recovery mechanism
of the parser, so I find it acceptable that they pass on browsers without
@supports.
If if you disagree, I can see 1 alternative way to write them so that they
fail on browsers without @supports.
Instead of:
div { height:100px; width:100px; }
@supports (margin: ) { div { background-color:red; } }
div { background-color:green; }
I could write:
div { height:100px; width:100px; }
@supports (margin: ) { div { background-color:red !important; } }
@supports (width: 0) { div { background-color:green; } }
It would result in green on correct implementations, red on incorrect
ones, and nothing when there is no implementation, so maybe that is
better. On the other hand, this is a less minimal TC, and it isn't as
obvious what is being tested, or what is wrong if something fails.
- Florian